Nuclear Weapons

[New Somersetshire]

Do you think the world would be a better place if the Manhattan Project had never taken place, and we did not have nuclear weapons? Or has the fear of nuclear war forced people to resolve their problems more peacefully?

I'm biased because my grandparents worked on the Manhattan Project, but I tend to think the fear of nuclear weapons is the reason the Cold War never turned into World War 3. What do you think?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't have supernatural abilities so I can't say if the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons, but I'm wholeheartedly against them. I think humans can achieve peace by other means than threatening to blow each other up. Nuclear weapons also cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. The very use of them could endanger the lives of practically hundreds of thousands of innocent people. People who didn't sign up to get shot at.

[Brogavia]

If nuclear weapons were never invented I probably would not exist. My Grandpa was suppose to be in the first wave of Operation Downfall, and they were expecting 100% causaulties within 48 hours.

And slightly less importantly, there wouldn't be a Japan either.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

oh pfft you guys just don't see the bigger picture

small weapons= lots of wars.

Big world ending weapons= no wars.

i think the atomic bomb is an important step in insuring world destruction and as a result all warfare will become futile.


My logic is awesomes : - )

[Puff-Puff-Pass Land]

I'm very against them, but I think the Manhattan Project was important, because it was the stepping stone to nuclear energy.

[Brogavia]

I think humans can achieve peace by other means than threatening to blow each other up.

10,000 years of human history says otherwise.

[Greater Amerigo]

The Nuclear age brought about a sense of restraint when it came to war. Without it countries would be less interested in peace.

Was it necessary? Not really, you'd probably see a larger military these days without it.

[Rolamec]

I think nuclear weapons are the reason why we haven't had a major world war since the 2nd one. However if we are playing the "what if..." game, sure. And what if people never starved? What if cancer didn't exist? What if pigs could fly and the Irish didn't drink? See where I'm going?

[Chrobalta]

I think if the United States did not have them, the Soviets would have rolled further west.

[Aeyariss]

Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Nobel

^ Try reading this article.

[Vervaria]

I think nuclear weapons are the reason why we haven't had a major world war since the 2nd one. However if we are playing the "what if..." game, sure. And what if people never starved? What if cancer didn't exist? What if pigs could fly and the Irish didn't drink? See where I'm going?

The world would be much less entertaining?

[Rolamec]

I think nuclear weapons are the reason why we haven't had a major world war since the 2nd one. However if we are playing the "what if..." game, sure. And what if people never starved? What if cancer didn't exist? What if pigs could fly and the Irish didn't drink? See where I'm going?

The world would be much less entertaining?

Exactly.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I think nuclear weapons are the reason why we haven't had a major world war since the 2nd one. However if we are playing the "what if..." game, sure. And what if people never starved? What if cancer didn't exist? What if pigs could fly and the Irish didn't drink? See where I'm going?

you don't like hypothetical situations?

[Lackadaisical2]

I like having them, I feel that the US and Russia may have actually duked it out instead of the relatively restrained primarily proxy based wars we saw during the cold war.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I like having them, I feel that the US and Russia may have actually duked it out instead of the relatively restrained primarily proxy based wars we saw during the cold war.

vietnam was restrained?

[Wamitoria]

The threat of man-made apocalypse probably gave people a greater incentive to contain would-be megalomaniacal tyrants.

[Chrobalta]

I like having them, I feel that the US and Russia may have actually duked it out instead of the relatively restrained primarily proxy based wars we saw during the cold war.

vietnam was restrained?

Considering the Red Army did not roll into Saigon, in that sense yes.

[Aeyariss]

The US didn't go nuclear so I guess it's restrained.

[Rolamec]

I think nuclear weapons are the reason why we haven't had a major world war since the 2nd one. However if we are playing the "what if..." game, sure. And what if people never starved? What if cancer didn't exist? What if pigs could fly and the Irish didn't drink? See where I'm going?

you don't like hypothetical situations?

Hypothetical situations that are possible, sure. Ones that have no probability of happening, no. For example, what if every nation did away with nukes? Why take the time pondering this, it certainly won't happen unless we use them all. Every country in the world could sign a pact promising to do away with nukes, hell they could do it. But people will have nukes -rogues, terrorist groups, private companies, and so on. It's pointless to waste the time wondering "what if" when in reality it can never be. The fact is nukes were made, the Manhattan project did happen and there is nothing we can do about it. Sure you could make the argument, perhaps future scientists will take this as an example, a precedent if you will. To what point? If our scientists won't make it, somebody else certainly will. If tomorrow they announced some super-bomb that could destroy the state of Texas (not sure that would be a bad thing), that knowledge is already out in the field and therefore will be used for great things, and abused for evil ones. No point wondering "what if..." it didn't happen, because it has and it did.

[Sucrati]

Option A: If nuclear weapons were never developed: The Second World War (Pacific Theater) would have been much deadlier due to a invasion of Japan --> Which would have led to wars over Asia (Just not Korea and Vietnam) --> Which would have led our forces to be drafted and over-strained --> Which would have led the Soviet Union to take over the areas not protected by the USA or its Allies --> Which would eventually led to a world of communism...

Option B: The Soviets would have developed the Atomic Bomb first and would have threatened countries into submission by nuclear obliteration, world follows Soviet Union

Option C: The Japanese regain their strength and invade the USA/Soviet Union...

I don't advocate communism/fascism/socialism, but that would be a worse case scenario.

[Lackadaisical2]

I like having them, I feel that the US and Russia may have actually duked it out instead of the relatively restrained primarily proxy based wars we saw during the cold war.

vietnam was restrained?

Yeah. Meaning the Russians didn't get involved.

[Puff-Puff-Pass Land]

I like having them, I feel that the US and Russia may have actually duked it out instead of the relatively restrained primarily proxy based wars we saw during the cold war.

vietnam was restrained?

Considering the Red Army did not roll into Saigon, in that sense yes.

^This

[Person012345]

I think Nuclear weapons have been a force for good, for example stabalising the cold war so that it wasn't a full out war between the US and the soviet union, but think nowadays we can get rid of them, they just aren't necessary anymore.

I happen to theink Nagasaki and Hiroshima were unjustified.

Plus getting rid of Trident would save us a shit-load of money.

[Hydesland]

I think humans can achieve peace by other means than threatening to blow each other up.

Right but it's preferable to threatening conventional warfare, especially since there are plenty of nutters out there that don't care about sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die (or even want it as a form of population control), nobody wants their country uninhabitable for a few decades on the other hand.

[Brogavia]

I like having them, I feel that the US and Russia may have actually duked it out instead of the relatively restrained primarily proxy based wars we saw during the cold war.

vietnam was restrained?

Yes. 4.5 million over 20 years compared to 30 million in 4 and a half years on the Eastern front, which would be the closest analogy to a no holds barred slugfest between the West and the Soviets.